The Saxon Office for the Protection of the Constitution collected data on AfD MPs. It was said at first that it was illegal. But it is obviously not that clear.
DRESDEN taz | In Saxony, there is still a dispute about the handling of the fact that the Saxon constitutional protection has collected publicly available data on AfD members of the state parliament. At the beginning of July, the President of the State Office Gordian Meyer-Plath was replaced by his supervisor in the Ministry of the Interior, Dirk-Martin Christian. It is illegal to collect the data, so the allegation. Allegations that were probably at least partially wrongly raised, as indications from the Parliamentary Control Commission (PKK) of the state parliament now indicate.
“The examination of the legality of the storage of MPs’ data” is “an ongoing process that has not yet been completed,” LfV spokeswoman Patricia Vernhold said on request. But even the AfD parliamentary group has still not filed its loudly announced complaint against its observation after almost four months. The AfD, otherwise never embarrassed, does not answer questions about the reasons for this delay.
In other groups it is suspected that the AfD does not want to risk the public naming of suspicious people, which is likely in the case of a lawsuit. The alleged Saxon observation affair had also acquired particular importance because of the observation of the right wing “wing” of the AfD by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. The “wing”, which has now formally dissolved, has a particularly large number of supporters in Saxony.
It was not until the beginning of October that the state office classified the Dresden judge and member of the Bundestag Jens Maier as right-wing extremist. The main reason for the delays is likely to be the interpretable legal situation. It is only unambiguous when using intelligence services, which, according to the Saxon constitutional protection law, the state parliament president must agree to. The PKK stated in September that no such secret service observation of AfD MPs took place. Only public statements and activities were collected.
Still other AfDler in the sights?
But that was also the case with today’s Thuringian Prime Minister Bodo Ramelow (left), who had successfully sued against his long-term observation during his time as a member of the Bundestag until 2009. According to the Federal Constitutional Court at the time, this violated the high value of the free exercise of mandate. Monitoring is only justified in individual cases if a mandate holder is “actively and aggressively” fighting the free-democratic basic order.
The Saxon Ministry of the Interior and the authority of the data protection officer Andreas Schurig tend to orientate themselves on this current case law of the constitutional court. The only specific guideline issued by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution on dealing with members of parliament is only intended for official use and is not publicly available.
The Saxon State Office only took over him when the new President took office. It therefore depends on the justification to what extent such a data collection serves to ward off anti-constitutional efforts.
“For a legally viable assessment, you need sufficient analytical expertise,” says Valentin Lippmann, who is a member of the five-member PKK for the Greens. There was a lack of that. The PKK, which is bound to secrecy, also announced that such legally secure records could now be provided for some AfD MPs and not for others – and that other MPs were targeted during the examination. Perhaps that is why the AfD has lost its lust for complaint. The PKK wants to make a final statement in November.